Free Will: The ability or discretion to choose
thefreedictionary.kom/free+will

As I understand it you guys' (Red and Autokrat (and Nephthys and Andrew Ryan?)) argument essentially states that because the choices that we make are ultimately predetermined (given the existence of an omniscient being who knows what choices we will make before we make them, or the simple fact that what's going to happen will definitely happen, including the choices that we make, regardless of whether or not a given being knows of it), and that it's only possible for us (within our control) to make those single choices, that we ultimately have no "ability or discretion to choose"... right?

The way I see it: The choices that we make are determined not only by our "ability or discretion to choose" but the manner in which the external environment influences our "ability or discretion to choose".

As humans, it's entirely possible that we can possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but still ultimately only ever be able to make a single choice (*) not because we don't possess "ability or discretion to choose" but because the external environment, of which we have no control over, will always influence our "ability or discretion to choose" in a manner that propels us to make that choice, and that choice alone (and only possibly that choice). That doesn't mean that we don't have "The ability or discretion to choose" but rather that we don't have control over what influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the choice that it does... I think.

* - this might appear to be a contradiction but it's not as in the context in which I'm using the terms "The ability or discretion to choose" ultimately refers to our ability in the thinking process to make decisions, whereas the single choice that we can "only ever be able to make" refers to the choice that the external environment forces our "ability or discretion to choose" to make

Originally posted by Serge
What I'm saying is essentially that, we as humans possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but that the external environment (which we have no control over) influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the only choice that we can possibly make.

Originally posted by Serge
"the only choice that we can possibly make"

There being just one choice not because we don't possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but because our "ability or discretion to choose" will always react to the external environment in the same manner.

Discuss...

Bardock42

If there is only one possible outcome there's no choice involved. For there to be choice there'd have to be some sort of, as of yet not understood, or metaphysical thing that could go either way. At least that's how it is if you define free will and choice as opposed to determinism. I am sure you could define choice in different ways, perhaps the way you did, but to what end would you do that?

There's also a few discussions on free will here already, I am sure, maybe you should have done a search.

Andrew Ryan

So basically you're saying that we can choose, but the environment hedges us in and basically determines our choices? It seems like semantic nonsense to me.

Free will is apparently the concept that human choice is not determined by pre-existing factors, but yet it attempts to explain freedom in limited, relative terms. No one ever argues that a human being themselves is "free of being caused". Obviously we were all born, cultivated, raised, and then unleashed on the unsuspecting world. Our genetic material, our primordial instincts, urges, goals, desires, and society each work to shape our personality. The point I strongly reject when it comes to the assumption of Free Will is that somehow humans develop choices in a void. This is as irrational as it is silly.

All personalities are caused by a multitude of factors, many subtle others jarringly obvious, but they are all caused. No one comes out of the womb, untouched, and develops choice to be free of all variables. How one can argue "choice is free" when there is no evidence to support it reeks of anthropocentric romanticism, clinging to the idea that "man is free".

Serge

I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose", i.e. the external environment".

Understand?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Serge
I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose"", i.e. the external environment.

Understand?

But you are just once removing the problem. You say there's choice, but it is a predetermined cog in the universe. That's not a choice though. What you are saying is basically that there is something that we perceive as choice. Which is probably true, but inconsequential to the philosophical discussion of whether choice exists.

Serge

"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Serge
"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.

No because for the word choose to be applicable to that it would have to have more than one possible outcome that actually could be chosen. In your scenario the illusion of the ability or discretion to choose would exist.

Red Nemesis

Originally posted by Serge
"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.
This seems to contradict itself. "The ability to choose" (emphasis mine) surely means that someone will be able to react in whatever way they like!

Serge

There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

Bardock42

Originally posted by Serge
There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

Fair enough, but that would be arbitrarily decided, how would you test for that? How would that scenario be different from the inability to choose.

Autokrat

Originally posted by Serge
There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

A man running down a hallway with no doors on either side and a magical wall of spikes right behind him that forces him to move ever forward. He could in theory chose to make a turn or open a door, but there are no ways to turn and no doors to open.

How is his will in any way free?

Digi

Most ideas of free will are incoherent. The one in the opening post is no different, because the quotes recognize the necessity of determinism but seem desperate to cling to some sense of free will as they define it.

The only cogent definition of free will I've ever heard removes the "determined or not" question entirely. If it is you making the decision, it is a decision of your own free will. If you are forced to make a decision against your will (coercion, deceit, sacrifice, etc.) it is not free but coerced in some manner. "Free will" then becomes more akin to what we might consider "personal freedom" in a societal or political sense, and is removed from illogical religious shoehorning of various concepts that don't match reality.

Also, Serge, just where does the "external environment" begin and end? Are we not part of universe, made of the same stuff as the rest of creation?

Serge

By "external environment" I meant anything and everything that exists outside of an individual's "ability or discretion to choose."

Could you explain and expand on this in clear, precise, direct terms?

Andrew Ryan

Originally posted by Serge
I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose", i.e. the external environment".

Understand?

This is a silly thing to bring up as the starting point for a discussion. It's apparent by the definitions and use of the terms that having an open choice and being left with no choice at all are not the same thing. I do not have to open a thread to make that clear; a link to Wikipedia will do just fine.

If you brought this up under the assumption that free will is as Digi noted, free of limited decisions, then I suppose you're on to something. Having a variety of choices allowed does not preclude the idea that you will definitely only choose one of them because of a multitude of factors which lead up to this point.

Red Nemesis

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
This is a silly thing to bring up as the starting point for a discussion. It's apparent by the definitions and use of the terms that having an open choice and being left with no choice at all are not the same thing. I do not have to open a thread to make that clear; a link to Wikipedia will do just fine.

If you brought this up under the assumption that free will is as Digi noted, free of limited decisions, then I suppose you're on to something. Having a variety of choices allowed does not preclude the idea that you will definitely only choose one of them because of a multitude of factors which lead up to this point.

sOCK PUPPETING is immoral.

Andrew Ryan

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
sOCK PUPPETING is immoral.

I'm no more a sock puppet than you are my mother. And if you are my mother, I'll have a lot to discuss with my therapist.

There, I've basically given you something to talk about.

Red Nemesis

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
I'm no more a sock puppet than you are my mother. And if you are my mother, I'll have a lot to discuss with my therapist.

There, I've basically given you something to talk about.

Except that "having a variety of choices" is not the same as having free will. For instance. If there is an array of different types of toothpaste(s) that I could buy then I have a variety of choices. However, according to determinism, the particular brand I will buy is already certain, given the various factors of the present (personality, advertisements conditioning my brain, and on a more fundamental level the arrangement of atoms in my brain).

Determinism doesn't mesh with free will.

magicturtle

Ya know, i think about this alot, but in the end, i really dont like to lol. Its not that it's too complicated, or anything, its just, if we act as if we have free will, then theres no problem, but if we question free will, there is a problem.

Digi

Originally posted by Serge
Could you explain and expand on this in clear, precise, direct terms?

That's about as precise as I can make it. Free will in a non-deterministic meaning of the word, makes no logical sense whatsoever. It only works as a concept for those who either willingly suspend logic, or haven't thought it through enough to realize it's inconsistent with logic.

Decisions are determined. The universe is causal. The only non-religious defense of free will I've ever heard is speculation about what we "don't know" about the universe, which itself is a ridiculous argument. Given a hand-picked set of hypotheticals, any theory could be true. It doesn't mean that it's something that should be believed in, however.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, Serge, just where does the "external environment" begin and end? Are we not part of universe, made of the same stuff as the rest of creation?

I think your answer to this really just skirts my question. Our "ability and discretion to choose" is determined by causal forces, just as external factors are determined by causal forces. It's determined, in other words. I really just think you're creating a needless distinction where none exists.

Andrew Ryan

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that "having a variety of choices" is not the same as having free will. For instance. If there is an array of different types of toothpaste(s) that I could buy then I have a variety of choices. However, according to determinism, the particular brand I will buy is already certain, given the various factors of the present (personality, advertisements conditioning my brain, and on a more fundamental level the arrangement of atoms in my brain).

Determinism doesn't mesh with free will.

That was my point. I said, in fewer words, that choice does not eliminate determining factors. Hence, determinism is still true.

inimalist

Free will implies a "willer"

which, long story short, isn't how it works

/fact

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
Free will implies a "willer"

which, long story short, isn't how it works

/fact

What a vague statement . . .

inimalist

it is, however, a fact

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
it is, however, a fact

It might be, but since I don't even know what it's trying to suggest I don't see how I can establish that.

inimalist

there is no you to establish the fact

lol, sorry, im supposed to be writing a paper, and I end up procrastinating in stupid ways...

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
there is no you to establish the fact

Weren't you just having a discussion about the problem of coming up with useless definitions?

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a vague statement . . .

ok, so here is the deal

it appears to me that this conversation is revolving more around the nature of what it means for a will to be "free".

However, I would argue that the neuroscience of human action and decision making processes require us to redefine what it means to have a "will", and in fact, given that most of our preperation to act and internal motivations/thoughts/feelings/consciousness are built in a bottom up way by parts of the brain that we are never aware of, the concept of will and volition that will arise is one that philosophical freedom is no longer applicable to.

It is like asking a series of dominos if they have free will. Sure, we could argue about potential choices that the dominos could make and whether the deterministic qualities of dominos themselves make a multitude of choices akin to freedom, but ultimatly, them mechanisms by which the actions of dominos are governed are not congruent with the ideas of freedom.

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Weren't you just having a discussion about the problem of coming up with useless definitions?

god, welcome to every neuroscience seminar this term....

basically, we have a language built on enlightenment ideas of self that do not hold up to science. Eastern philosophy is a little better at some aspects, but also generally limited.

The only way for me to communicate anything of meaning to you about the brain and human action is through meaningless abstractions, because we don't know enough yet

Digi

in seems more miffed than usual. Paper not going well?

inimalist

its ok, i might post it, its just LATE and I'd rather be doing anything but...

its for a neuropsych seminar, but instead of expanding on a concept, I'm discussing the complete social/moral vacuum that scientists seem to think they do research in and how modern psych/neuroscience can and is abused by power systems...

its actually ok though, just you know, totally not what I was supposed to do

Red Nemesis

Whoops. I definitely misread that, sorry!

my problem is solved.

Want a Cookie?

inimalist, do you have an idea about a solution to this problem?

inimalist

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
inimalist, do you have an idea about a solution to this problem?

not really...

so like, I could talk about colour information getting to the optic tactum and influencing the FEF indapendent of V1 activation, and in fact, producing behaviour to visual stimuli that the aware part of the brain is never conscious of. This is the basic theory behind blind sight.

But like, even that is simplified, and I know it means nothing to people who don't have the requisite knowledge. Its like someone trying to explain a car to me, even if you simplify it, I barely understand.

Its really bad to, like, I have a better than average Undergrad education (I had some perks from working as an RA), but because of the areas that I have specialized in versus some of my profs, even ones that study perception, I would know far more about the most recent research on, say, the path from retina to LGN to V1 than they would.

neuroscience lacks something like "newtonian physics" or "quantum physics" or whatever, there is no real discoursive framework to try and explain how things work. It makes being in the field exciting, but the amount of times I've read a results section and just started laughing because of how messed up (as in, holy shit how did they get such unexpected results) they have been.

But all this hinges on the fact that science would inform how people believe about the "self", which is laughable in the first place. People are way more likely to look to Chopra than Gazzaniga for answers to this, so the conversation scientists are having and the one regular folk are will almost certainly move further and further apart.

Digi

Interesting take. But I like it, and thanks for shedding a little light on the laymen neuroscience scene. Laymen being us, not you. I get into free will discussion as much or more than religious discussions, so it's a line of thinking that appeals to me, even if I can't claim expertise.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so here is the deal

it appears to me that this conversation is revolving more around the nature of what it means for a will to be "free".

However, I would argue that the neuroscience of human action and decision making processes require us to redefine what it means to have a "will", and in fact, given that most of our preperation to act and internal motivations/thoughts/feelings/consciousness are built in a bottom up way by parts of the brain that we are never aware of, the concept of will and volition that will arise is one that philosophical freedom is no longer applicable to.

It is like asking a series of dominos if they have free will. Sure, we could argue about potential choices that the dominos could make and whether the deterministic qualities of dominos themselves make a multitude of choices akin to freedom, but ultimatly, them mechanisms by which the actions of dominos are governed are not congruent with the ideas of freedom.

While interesting I think it's worth point out that even Relativity, which fundamentally uprooted physics, didn't necessitate changing our vocabulary.

There's the old concept of "Lies To Children" that you have to keep in mind. While the mind, will and self may not be real as far as neuroscience is concerned but in everyday conversation that is irrelevant.

In fact you summed it up nicely:

Originally posted by inimalist
But all this hinges on the fact that science would inform how people believe about the "self", which is laughable in the first place. People are way more likely to look to Chopra than Gazzaniga for answers to this, so the conversation scientists are having and the one regular folk are will almost certainly move further and further apart.

Trying to force lay language to fit the language of science is futile, even moreso than creating a "logical language". It also strikes me as a really scary path to go down.

I have the choice to go to work and earn some bread, or to stay home and play some CoD6! But my son and wife and pets starve if i do the latter, so i MUST go to work. S'not a choice at all really. On this world in this life, freewill has it's limits, physical constraints. Need cash. Need medical care, need food, need stimulation, we need to much not to get locked into a routine of mundane tasks that while - go against what we actually would like to be accomplishing - go towards feeding those physical restraints.

If you get what i mean.

Mindship

There are always choices, even if it sometimes means choosing the lesser of two evils. Regardless, am I exercising free will? I acknowledge it as a reliable "as if," but whether this is valid is apparently unresolvable.

Red Nemesis

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
Are we talking Macadamia here?

And white-chocolate chips!

Those are my favorite.

ushomefree

For free will not to exist, life would be reduced to a movie script; excuse the pun. Who's living your life, if not yourself?

King Kandy

Originally posted by ushomefree
For free will not to exist, life would be reduced to a movie script; excuse the pun. Who's living your life, if not yourself?
Science vs. Platitudes

Which shall be the victor?!

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by ushomefree
For free will not to exist, life would be reduced to a movie script

Originally posted by ushomefree
For free will not to exist, life would be reduced to a movie script; excuse the pun. Who's living your life, if not yourself?

A very complex one.

Of which "I" possibly only "read" tiny parts.

Yeah, that about sums it up...

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by ushomefree
Just give up, Symmetric Chaos. Oh wait... you can't, ha ha! That would involve free will.

I've seen many movies where characters give up on something despite being bound by the script.

ushomefree

Drop it!

inimalist

Originally posted by ushomefree
Drop it!

you posted innane ideas in a discussion about free will

it is certainly not Sym who needs to stop...

calvinNhobbes

Hey Inimalist I noticed that you are studying neuroscience. Although I have had limited exposure to the subject I do remember some interesting reading from so many years ago. We had studied evolutionary epistemology and covered top down and bottom up theory along the way. I was just going to suggest if you haven't already, to check out books by Robert Searle and one by Sharon Begley called Train your Mind change your Brain. Just throwing that out. Personally after reading a few of the post here I think I am still not quite sure where I stand on the issue of free will. I often wonder how scientist retain their religious convictions when faced with empirical knowledge and a reductionist training.

inimalist

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
Hey Inimalist

the "i" is not capitalized; inimalist

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
I noticed that you are studying neuroscience. Although I have had limited exposure to the subject I do remember some interesting reading from so many years ago. We had studied evolutionary epistemology and covered top down and bottom up theory along the way. I was just going to suggest if you haven't already, to check out books by Robert Searle and one by Sharon Begley called Train your Mind change your Brain. Just throwing that out.

yup, it is taught in psych 101 now, sort of at the foundations of all neurosicence and psych at the moment

I do my work more in perception, so from that perspective even "top down" looks pretty "bottom up", but thats a totally different issue. If you are interested in some decent work about it, look up Dan Dennet or Sue Blackmore. or VS ramachandran.

Some of the best stuff is Ben Libet's "free won't", but from there it starts getting a bit more dense.

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
Personally after reading a few of the post here I think I am still not quite sure where I stand on the issue of free will.

nothing is really know about it for sure, and even the stuff I'm talking about isn't totally mutually exclusive with some sense of free will. Certainly not as a "soul" or a "ghost in the machine" or even in a Carteasian sense, but there is still some degree of intentionallity in human behaviour.

There is a condition known as Pseudo-depression, where a person looses basically everything we would call "human" about themselves. They can still respond if asked a question, but otherwise will just sit and stare, often soiling themselves and not careing at all (oddly, they will still smoke). From this, it seems clear that there is at least something within us that drives us to do things, and that we have some will over it (though maybe not with smoking).

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
I often wonder how scientist retain their religious convictions when faced with empirical knowledge and a reductionist training.

One of the RAs working in the lab with me a couple of years ago was a Creationist. The one before that believed in ghosts.

That being said, those people are among the very few who things like a "soul" or "spirit" would be relevant to, even at the undergrad level in this. I can't think of one serious prof in the psych department I was at who believed in God or the supernatural. Especially in neuroscience, you really have no room at all for the soul, it becomes nonsensical.

Which always struck me as strange. Evolution leaves huge gaps open for religion. God could have started it, been directing it, etc, not a hard fit with creation at all. Psych has, in the past 40-50 years, redefined the self in such a way that any religious conceptions of "soul" are in no way congruent, yet everyone causes such a fuss over evolution, and none about neuroscience. lol.

calvinNhobbes

Thanks for the suggestions inimalist. Speaking of perception and reality you should check out "Waking Life" , its a very cool movie. I personally don't have the capacity to ponder free will too much I think more along the lines of pragmatic behavior so if tomorrow turns into yesterday and a tree scares me in the woods when I wasn't looking and 2+2 = 6 I'll hopeful be able to adjust enough to get on with things. Peace.

King Kandy

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
Thanks for the suggestions inimalist. Speaking of perception and reality you should check out "Waking Life" , its a very cool movie. I personally don't have the capacity to ponder free will too much I think more along the lines of pragmatic behavior so if tomorrow turns into yesterday and a tree scares me in the woods when I wasn't looking and 2+2 = 6 I'll hopeful be able to adjust enough to get on with things. Peace.
Awesome movie.

inimalist

huh, I never really liked it

King Kandy

It seems like everyone i've talked to either loved the movie or didn't like it at all.

Mindship

Originally posted by calvinNhobbes
"Waking Life"

inimalist

Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems like everyone i've talked to either loved the movie or didn't like it at all.

thats my experience as well, though I should probably give it a try again, most people seem to like it

Johnny Sorrow

I don't believe free will exists, but our interactions and actions are so complex (and fluid) that we may never be able to accurately predict the general line of our day-to-day lives.

MasterAshenVor

Free will is not a concept of multiple facets, Free Will is simply the ability of a human to choose what he wishes to do in a certain situation. No one is forcing him to choose one way or another, we all have the right and ability to choose and do what we want.

Let me give you an example, you walk into oh, say...McDonalds...Free Will simply gives you the ability to choose between a Double Cheeseburger or a Big Mac.

In a more serious example, Say you see a murder or a rape...Free Will gives you the choice of reporting your observation to the Police or you could choose to not tell anyone and go on like nothing happened.

Free Will is not a complex issue, it's just an issue that has been made complex by those who would wish to control others by depriving others from it. e.g. Communists, Fascists, and Dictators.

Also for all of you who believe there is no free will and that your actions and choices have been chosen for you and that you just haven't made them yet....No one can know if it is or not, but the fact of the matter is YOU DO have a CHOICE. Hence FREE WILL.

Bardock42

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
Free will is not a concept of multiple facets, Free Will is simply the ability of a human to choose what he wishes to do in a certain situation. No one is forcing him to choose one way or another, we all have the right and ability to choose and do what we want.

Let me give you an example, you walk into oh, say...McDonalds...Free Will simply gives you the ability to choose between a Double Cheeseburger or a Big Mac.

In a more serious example, Say you see a murder or a rape...Free Will gives you the choice of reporting your observation to the Police or you could choose to not tell anyone and go on like nothing happened.

Free Will is not a complex issue, it's just an issue that has been made complex by those who would wish to control others by depriving others from it. e.g. Communists, Fascists, and Dictators.

Also for all of you who believe there is no free will and that your actions and choices have been chosen for you and that you just haven't made them yet....No one can know if it is or not, but the fact of the matter is YOU DO have a CHOICE. Hence FREE WILL.

You don't know whether any of the stuff you said is actually true. It's a decent summary of the pro free will side, but it is no proof of anything.

inimalist

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
Free will is not a concept of multiple facets, Free Will is simply the ability of a human to choose what he wishes to do in a certain situation. No one is forcing him to choose one way or another, we all have the right and ability to choose and do what we want.

free will has nothing to do with rights... even if we were told not to act in a certain way, if we had free will, we could. I think you are confusing the concept with personal freedom a little bit.

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
Let me give you an example, you walk into oh, say...McDonalds...Free Will simply gives you the ability to choose between a Double Cheeseburger or a Big Mac.

actually, this is incorrect. The "You" of western philosophy, the actor in the mind, does not choose options like this. It might be that "you" had the ability to stop certain actions prior to their completion, but your motivation and decision making processes which would have determined nearly 100% of your behaviour in the McDonalds situation are processed before you have any conscious awareness of them.

Your brain had already decided you wanted a big mac and was making the proper plans to reach this decision before you were ever consciously aware that you were hungry.

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
In a more serious example, Say you see a murder or a rape...Free Will gives you the choice of reporting your observation to the Police or you could choose to not tell anyone and go on like nothing happened.

actually, in that example specifically, people's behaviour has been found to be related much more to how many other people are around, and what they are doing. Taken with the fact that decision making occurs before conscious awareness, it is likely that people have little "choice" in their response to horrific acts.

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
Free Will is not a complex issue, it's just an issue that has been made complex by those who would wish to control others by depriving others from it. e.g. Communists, Fascists, and Dictators.

free will is an exceptionally complex issue, the problem is that you have totally confused "free will" with "personal freedom"

else, your strawman ad homenin makes no sense whatsoever

Originally posted by MasterAshenVor
Also for all of you who believe there is no free will and that your actions and choices have been chosen for you and that you just haven't made them yet....No one can know if it is or not, but the fact of the matter is YOU DO have a CHOICE. Hence FREE WILL.

? So, your proof against determinism is "no one can know"

that also applies to free will then, no one can know if you have free will, so just act like you dont.

you really haven't shown anything

kgkg

Free will is an illusion.

753

How can one claim with certainty that the material universe is indeed deterministic and that the future is entirely and unidirectionally (a single cause can only lead to a single effect, not multiple possible ones) dictated by the present?

There are several material systems that as far as we can perceive and understand can only be described as probabilistic and indeterministic. A lot of research also presents systems previously assumed to be deterministic as indeterministic.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by 753
How can one claim with certainty that the material universe is indeed deterministic and that the future is entirely and unidirectionally (a single cause can only lead to a single effect, not multiple possible ones) dictated by the present?

There are several material systems that as far as we can perceive and understand can only be described as probabilistic and indeterministic. A lot of research also presents systems previously assumed to be deterministic as indeterministic.

Any examples other than quantum mechanics?

inimalist

Originally posted by 753
How can one claim with certainty that the material universe is indeed deterministic and that the future is entirely and unidirectionally (a single cause can only lead to a single effect, not multiple possible ones) dictated by the present?

There are several material systems that as far as we can perceive and understand can only be described as probabilistic and indeterministic. A lot of research also presents systems previously assumed to be deterministic as indeterministic.

however, from the view of modern neuroscience, such deterministic/indeterministic quandries of sub atomic physics are irrelevant.

The behaviour of neuronal function is entirely deterministic, with all but very mundane effects (and even unlikely at that) being attributable to sub-atomic phenomenon (there are some implausable arguments for effects in cytoskeleton tubules and potential effects on potassium or sodium ion channels during an action potential). The parts of the self that might be said to have free will, however, are themselves part of deterministic structures, and such 1/0 dualities are irrelevant. The self happens at a scale where quantum interactions are moot.

However, there is no need to even talk about atomic determinism, when the concept of a self which could have a choice about what it wills is an errorous concept from Enlightenment philosophy. That self is in fact an amalgamation of different information coming from different systems, largely pieced together after an event and behaviour has occured. Experements show that one's motivation to act comes after their body has prepared to move, the self then being secondary to underlying processes that generally govern behaviour. There is evidence that will may allow people to supress their motivations, but if you want to expand this, it can even be argued that cognitive and memory systems are reactive to stimuli, and such "free wont" might just be like a more-complex series of deterministic dominos.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
Experements show that one's motivation to act comes after their body has prepared to move

It was, and it sort of stands out as a nice "one off" experiment specifically about free will, rather than stuff from research that only relates to it.

For instance, much better proof of this "readiness potential" that preceeds motivation comes from basic fMRI and other imaging studies that show clear activation in areas associated with planning movement (SMA, PMA) much earlier than in the more frontal regions associated with cognitive awareness. I could probably pull a thing or two off of PubMed if you are interested, but Libet is still pretty amazing.

That being said, no one study can be definitive

ADarksideJedi

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
So basically you're saying that we can choose, but the environment hedges us in and basically determines our choices? It seems like semantic nonsense to me.

Free will is apparently the concept that human choice is not determined by pre-existing factors, but yet it attempts to explain freedom in limited, relative terms. No one ever argues that a human being themselves is "free of being caused". Obviously we were all born, cultivated, raised, and then unleashed on the unsuspecting world. Our genetic material, our primordial instincts, urges, goals, desires, and society each work to shape our personality. The point I strongly reject when it comes to the assumption of Free Will is that somehow humans develop choices in a void. This is as irrational as it is silly.

All personalities are caused by a multitude of factors, many subtle others jarringly obvious, but they are all caused. No one comes out of the womb, untouched, and develops choice to be free of all variables. How one can argue "choice is free" when there is no evidence to support it reeks of anthropocentric romanticism, clinging to the idea that "man is free".

God had given everyone a free will that we can choose from right or wrong or know what is right or wrong.Althrough if we pick the bad path it will only lead to unhappiness.
If you pick the right one it will lead to happiness.

Febna Albeol

My personal thoughts on the matter:

Operating under the following definition of free will: "the ability to make choices (choices as in "conscious activity that is of a variable capacity to be&quot", and assuming the validity of the foundational knowledge that my argument relies upon, as well as the adequacy of my awareness as it relates to the process of analysis, objects of thought and function with variable capabilities have free will.

Free will exists in this scenario as it is thought and function that can be said to directly determine the activity of such an object.

That there are alternative determinents of the activity in question is an irrelevance that simply highlights the point that there are multiple perspectives from which an issue can be observed and an object can exist. From the appropriate perspective (from the perspective of the material world, free will is a meaningless concept), that which gives meaning to the concept of free will, that is, from the domain of the mind as it has been outlined, free will is the direct cause of conscious activity.

That there is only a single predetermined form that the universe can take at any particular point at any given scale, including the choices that can be made and the design behind the aforementioned 'objects of thought and function with variable capabilities", does not prove incompatibilism (the concept of material determinism or the idea of destiny would not even be required to those ends in the first place - conscious activity that is of a variable capacity to act, if assumed to itself be of a deterministic nature using the beginning existence of the mind as a point of reference, would in itself only ever interact with a fixed constant in a single given manner), as free will as it has been
outlined here concerns itself with the variable capacity to act in alternate hypothetical scenarios with respect to the function of the object of thought, not in reality with respect to a single given function and a fixed state of the external environment. Free will concerns itself with the freedom of the individual, and it is only because the function of thought, which predates free will in the choice making process, is fixed, that choices are fixed. Function does not restrict the freedom of the individual, it in fact largely defines the individual. Individuals have free will because the elements that define their existence, from its very beginning to its entire timeline, determine how their variable capacity to act is realised through conscious effort. Fixed outcomes do not disprove freedom, but in fact confirm how freedom is utilised in the face of fixed factors at play.

Other notable counter arguments, without going into specifics, for the most part suffer from errors or intentional distortions of equivocation, and I'd appreciate it if you were to pay attention to the exact definitions I'm operating under and I'll gladly clarify where such indication hasn't been given so that we can minimise the potential for such errors for this particular discussion.

Febna Albeol

I've come to realise that this entire argument, when you get to the root of the issue, is entirely semantical in nature, with the concept only having meaning from the perspective where it by definition exists; the philosophical argument would appear to concern itself more with the existence of such a thing as an object of thought and function with variable capabilities.

I feel this has become such a significant philosophical argument, if only for the fact that philosophers enter complicated semantical territory where they're unable to maintain the overly technical approach that they originally take and lose sight of the simple truths of the matter.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
Experements show that one's motivation to act comes after their body has prepared to move, the self then being secondary to underlying processes that generally govern behaviour.

Well, let's be clear that this is motivation to do a rather primitive action: movement that results in pressing a button.

The study itself is not being scruitinized (it is for other reasons..but not in the context of this conversation) for being inconclusive. It is being scrutinized because it is a far too simplistic action to really come close to determining free will. It does not even come close to a complex decision that a human brain could make.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is evidence that will may allow people to supress their motivations, but if you want to expand this, it can even be argued that cognitive and memory systems are reactive to stimuli, and such "free wont" might just be like a more-complex series of deterministic dominos.

iirc, the 'no' command takes a certain amount of time to cancel the "press it" action resulting in an "point of no return" situation. I don't remember the exact numbers but if a "no" command was received before a certain point, the cancelling of the action would occur. The study that tried to measure the "veto" portion of the free will sensation failed to measure the proper "veto" that Libet originally referred to. The veto Libet referred to was an internal veto not one that occured from an external stimuli. I take the Brass and Kuhn study to be another measure of what Hallett and Matsuhashi had already determined (It sounds like a contrived statement but it's not: they both measure the propogation of actions processed in the subconscious...it measures the same thing, basically...which would explain why both have almost the exact same time variance to target effect).

This indicates that we do have a certain measure of free will and it is why I take this stance:

Humans have free will but we do not have libertarian free will.

We are bound by certain deterministic restraints but humans do have the ability to choose things that contradict the seemingly deterministic action or thought. That's an oversimplification in binary terms. There are decisions we can make that are extremely complex (if you think about how those decisions came about from a neuroscientific perspective) and cannot be boiled down to a binary decision.

The subconscious: the last great frontier of medical science.

However, and this is a major however...

As a religious person, I believe the soul plays a very tiny portion in our decision making processes. Our soul's primary function is acting as the conduit between this plane and the next rather than the primary actor in free will. In other words, I think the complete human body is greater than the sum of it's parts. Not by much, of course, but it's there. Basically, the soul is a subtle element to decision making (or thinking, if you will) but it's primary function is to act as a conduit and a "hard drive". I'm sure you get the "hard drive" reference but I can explain that if it isn't clear.

Bentley

I agree with ini busting the laughable notion of "self", the experiment is also very interesting. Kudos.

zeeshanam

This is really a good thing for all to think and take decision....

SupermanAscends

Free will exists, but it is completely effective. The power to make a choice with agreement is out there, and the freedom is present. The external environment does have a say in the choice of free will, but the person has the capacity to make the decision.

There are barriers that control the free will of humans. The teachers keep the schools safe, and promote the children to rise to better people. This allows the children to choose better and have more freedom.

The police watch the streets and track down criminals who might interfere with the free will. They keep the society functioning normal and possible for kids to be who they want to be.

No one can really force another person to lose his or her free will.

ArabianDrums

In the sense that we're born a certain way, into certain circumstances, and shaped by our environment, we probably don't have 'free will', or at least, not very free. However, the only way for society to function is based on the assumption that everyone has largely free will- and arguably that is the only way we collectively can shape people's environment and then influence the choices others might make through 'free will'. If we punish certain crimes, ensure people are economically self-sufficient, etc., then we give them greater free will, and also shape them into people whose lack of free will will at least be less harmful.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by ArabianDrums
In the sense that we're born a certain way, into certain circumstances, and shaped by our environment, we probably don't have 'free will', or at least, not very free. However, the only way for society to function is based on the assumption that everyone has largely free will- and arguably that is the only way we collectively can shape people's environment and then influence the choices others might make through 'free will'. If we punish certain crimes, ensure people are economically self-sufficient, etc., then we give them greater free will, and also shape them into people whose lack of free will will at least be less harmful.

Punishment for crimes (or sin) seems to be in conflict with free will.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Punishment for crimes (or sin) seems to be in conflict with free will.
Indeed, it appears so. God : ''O Man, I'll give you free will...to use exactly as I command you''

...

We do have certain level of free will, however there are consequences within a society, such as ostracization if one uses in it's entirety.

Originally posted by Mindship
Is 'free will' being equated with, 'I can do whatever I want - nah nah nah nah nah'?

Free will should be just that. Then, in that case, only a god has free will. Could it be a way of saying we are God?

Lord Lucien

I can't fly faster than the speed of light. I feel so enslaved. Physics has taken my free will from me. I'm going to press charges.

Mindship

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Free will should be just that. Then, in that case, only a god has free will. Could it be a way of saying we are God? Sure, if we choose to act responsibly, with compassion, intelligence and foresight (no nah nah nah nah nah).

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Mindship
Is 'free will' being equated with, 'I can do whatever I want - nah nah nah nah nah'?

No.
If you cannot chose something due to the fear of being ostracised by your community or loved ones, such as marrying into a different clan, 'race', ethnicity or religion then your free will is limited.

In a religious sense, if there is a free will indeed, religion is altogether pointless as well as God sending down messengers and prophets. Unless, of course, as I already stated, God gave us free will to use it as he commands us to.

Mindship

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Unless, of course, as I already stated, God gave us free will to use it as he commands us to. Perhaps, via 'free will', Man is God testing Himself.

I like that idea. I'll have to meditate on it a bit...but...interesting.

En Sabah Nur X

Neither randomness nor determinism allow for free will.

wteiuxyqtoM
regardless the relativity of simultaneity means that in some sense we all lie in the past of some observer, the future of another. And if we lie in the past we are set in stone, as we know hitler is dead and einstein too, their fate set in stone by being in the past, we don't talk about the freedom of hitler to make different choices and win the war, his choices are immutable elements of our past, his loss a certainty.

regardless the relativity of simultaneity means that in some sense we all lie in the past of some observer, the future of another. And if we lie in the past we are set in stone, as we know hitler is dead and einstein too, their fate set in stone by being in the past, we don't talk about the freedom of hitler to make different choices and win the war, his choices are immutable elements of our past, his loss a certainty.

Or perhaps all of the possible pasts exist, but we only see the one that is connected by cause and effect to the our present.

En Sabah Nur X

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or perhaps all of the possible pasts exist, but we only see the one that is connected by cause and effect to the our present.

even if this were the case, free will is still problematic if you want acausal will intervening in physical reality. There are memories, there are real world considerations, and all aspects of behavior must in all likelyhood accounted by brain activity, the brain is governed by physical laws.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
even if this were the case, free will is still problematic if you want acausal will intervening in physical reality. There are memories, there are real world considerations, and all aspects of behavior must in all likelyhood accounted by brain activity, the brain is governed by physical laws.

I don't believe in free will.

Ascendancy

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Punishment for crimes (or sin) seems to be in conflict with free will.

If we have free will, then society as a whole is capable of deciding that certain acts are wrong and warrant punishment. If we don't have free will, then neither does society and any "choices" it makes about right and wrong are as inevitable as the wrong-doers committing those acts.

From every argument I've seen the only possiblity for "true" free will is if it comes by means of our consciousness being capable of existing outside of the laws that seem to govern the Universe, somehow allowing us to have an effect, i.e. a choice, without any causation. Otherwise the very atoms that make us up were destined to be a part of us from the time of the Big Bang or however it is that we originated. Their energy and velocity determined their course, save any minute random chance as quantum theory applies, and we are who we were always going to be.

It's interesting though, because if that's the case those who believe in God can't help but believe, those who believe in gods can't help but believe, those who believe this life is all there is can't help but believe as they do. My $0.02.

Astner

We have to define what we mean with free will in and the framework which it applies in. The ability to choose isn't specific enough, you have to define what a choice is. Because at a microscopic level your consciousness is just a network of electrochemical signals, there's no intangible over-mind that keeps track and analyze these signals, they analyze themselves. But of course questions like: "You've already made the choice." may affect the outcome of that choice. So you can't see the question as an external factor to test it.

That said, the current model of quantum field model has very little to do with the subject.

Ascendancy

It has to do with the fact that aside from random occurence the present state of all atoms was determined as soon as the Universe came into being. It is not amazing that we are on the third rock from the sun, sentient and having discussions about philosophy; it was completely inevitable and set on course in those first moments.

inimalist

the debate doesn't even need to get to the level of physics.

scientists can look at fMRI images and know what choices you are going to make before you do. This means your brain has already determined your choices before "you" become aware of them, the conscious "you" has no control over them.

Similarly, the motor system has already planned and prepared your body to perform an action before you become motivated to do it. The "free-will" that "you" might have, in the light of modern neuroscience, is incredibly limited, and really amounts to decisions to stop actions, themselves almost certainly determined preconsciously, meaning you really aren't in control of these decisions either.

Astner

Originally posted by Ascendancy
It has to do with the fact that aside from random occurence the present state of all atoms was determined as soon as the Universe came into being.
First and foremost, you have to differentiate between fact and theory. Secondly, we've yet to define what a choice is.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
It is not amazing that we are on the third rock from the sun, sentient and having discussions about philosophy; it was completely inevitable and set on course in those first moments.
Postdestination is not proof for predestination -- which is another argument entirely.

Astner

Originally posted by inimalist
scientists can look at fMRI images and know what choices you are going to make before you do.
That's not how functional magnetic resonance image mapping works.

Originally posted by inimalist
This means your brain has already determined your choices before "you" become aware of them, the conscious "you" has no control over them.
Then how come you can affect people after they've made their choice by adding influence. Such as: "I know that you're going to take the red pill."

Originally posted by inimalist
Similarly, the motor system has already planned and prepared your body to perform an action before you become motivated to do it. The "free-will" that "you" might have, in the light of modern neuroscience, is incredibly limited, and really amounts to decisions to stop actions, themselves almost certainly determined preconsciously, meaning you really aren't in control of these decisions either.
Once more, you'll have to define what a choice is.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Astner
That's not how functional magnetic resonance image mapping works.

Unless you're doing an experiment specifically to test that kind of thing.

In fact you don't even need a fMRI to recreate Libet's experiments, he did it with an EEG. Neurological precursors to action occur before the conscious feeling of deciding.

Astner

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you're doing an experiment specifically to test that kind of thing.

In fact you don't even need a fMRI to recreate Libet's experiments, he did it with an EEG. Neurological precursors to action occur before the conscious feeling of deciding.
I wasn't saying that the subconscious isn't a factor in our decision making. Please read what you reply to.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Astner
I wasn't saying that the subconscious isn't a factor in our decision making. Please read what you reply to.

Don't pull a dadude.

You said "fMRI mapping doesn't work that way". I responded to that.

Under tightly controlled circumstances, you very much can use an fMRI to determine what people will do before they do it. With the use of an fMRI Libet's original results of something like .75 seconds before the action were improved to several seconds. It is, in fact, a very elegant demonstration of the dominance of deterministic forces in the brain.

Astner

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You said "fMRI mapping doesn't work that way".
And it doesn't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I responded to that because, under tightly controlled circumstances, you very much can use to to see what people will do before they do it.

With the use of an fMRI Libet's original results of something like .75 seconds before the action were improved to several seconds.
You misunderstand the experiment. Libet's experiment centers around preforming a given action. Through that, the result shows that there's a lag between brain activity and conscious actions. It has nothing to do with knowing what a person will choose when presented with two options.

inimalist

Originally posted by Astner
That's not how functional magnetic resonance image mapping works.

I... I wasn't describing how an fMRI works, though I'm interested in what you mean. The scientists looked at fMRI images... this is something that can be done in a host of software, including MSPaint if you export the images from Brain Voyager or something similar.

Originally posted by Astner
Then how come you can affect people after they've made their choice by adding influence.

because you have added stimuli into the individual's cognitive system that is processed pre-consciously and already processed for meaning long before they become aware of it?

I'm not sure what you are getting at...

Originally posted by Astner
Such as: "I know that you're going to take the red pill."

This doesn't really follow from the sentence you typed before it...

Are you asking about just basic demand characteristics a subject might pick up?

Originally posted by Astner
Once more, you'll have to define what a choice is.

in that case I was talking about the motor readiness potential, that prepares your muscles to move prior to you knowing your intent to move. Sure, this is Libet, but has been replicated not only through ERP/EEG but also fMRI studies, to the point that we can identify areas in the frontal and pre-motor cortex that are involved in action planning pre-consciously.

The choice, in this context, comes from your awareness of a specific action that your body is already prepared to do. Your choice basically comes down to "should I stop this action?"

However, given the stuff about Yes/No, A or B choices that we already know, this choice of whether to stop a prepared action is almost certainly produced from memory and other systems over which one has little to no conscious control.

inimalist

oh, wait

Astner, you thought I was describing some type of real-time reading of fMRI while the person is actively in the magnet?

because, then, sure, you can only even see very broad scale things like "motor cortex" or whatever in the sort of 'live feed'

Ascendancy

Originally posted by Astner

You misunderstand the experiment. Libet's experiment centers around preforming a given action. Through that, the result shows that there's a lag between brain activity and conscious actions. It has nothing to do with knowing what a person will choose when presented with two options.

Libet's and Kornhuber's experiments were used to examine what impulses in the brain occur when someone is told to complete an action vs being allowed to complete the action "randomly." It was shown that brain activity occurs in the same way for both, with scientist able to know that someone was about to take action before the actor was conscious of the decision himself. The impulse is there before the person decides to act. Being able to choose when to do something would certainly be an indication of Free Will and it seems we lack the ability to actually do that in the way that we believe.

There are debates around this even recently and we're here to do just that so I'd be glad to hear what you have to say about it.

We also have experiments showing that people's brains can be stimulated in such ways that their bodies can be made to move and though it is the scientist administering the stimulation that causes it the person believes that they are voluntarily doing it. This leans very heavily towards Free Will being much more a matter of perception than reality.

Astner

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Libet's and Kornhuber's experiments were used to examine what impulses in the brain occur when someone is told to complete an action vs being allowed to complete the action "randomly." It was shown that brain activity occurs in the same way for both, with scientist able to know that someone was about to take action before the actor was conscious of the decision himself. The impulse is there before the person decides to act. Being able to choose when to do something would certainly be an indication of Free Will and it seems we lack the ability to actually do that in the way that we believe.
Yes, that's what I wrote.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
We also have experiments showing that people's brains can be stimulated in such ways that their bodies can be made to move and though it is the scientist administering the stimulation that causes it the person believes that they are voluntarily doing it. This leans very heavily towards Free Will being much more a matter of perception than reality.
Which is exactly why you'll have to define free will properly before we can come to any conclusions. No one argues that there's an overarching soul reading the electrochemical brain signals.

Ascendancy

As long as we don't go with the Compatibilist definition it's all good.